dartmoordoggers wrote:

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

There's probably quite a few you all can think of but I just mentioned this in another thread and I've only just thought of this myself...

They threw the Sherlock lookalike out of the window in order for John to be able to see a body from the distance when he was rounding the corner, just before he was knocked over by the bike. Then, once he was on the ground, the lookalike was swapped with the real, alive Sherlock.

My question is, if John was only seeing the body from afar - which he was - why did it need to be the Sherlock lookalike in the first place? Why couldn't it just be a random dead guy with dark hair wearing one of Sherlock's coats? Why would they go to all the trouble of tracking down this lookalike guy if it wasn't necessary?

My guess is that  a near lookalike  would be preferable to cover for all eventualities. If John had sprung back up immediately after being hit by the bike they would not have had time to switch bodies; so the lookalike would be a better bet once John got closer. I also suspect that the lookalike would have been utilised for a number of the other scenarios. 
 

 
But if John had sprung up immedeately after being hit by the bike he would have seen the bl**dy great air-bag with SH climbing off it, hardly covers all eventualities!

Again, why go to all that trouble if the only person to see it, not in on the scam, was John?

your explanation:

they paid of some people to wire or at least put the materials in the car in the depot, paid one of the tube drivers to dispose said carriage plus bomb expert in the right tunnel during a late night drive, and he took care of the rest and then left through the tunnels.

is a good basis for expansion and debate towards one theory.

Like Caroll said: "S.H. stories are all about explaining things", lets run with it.

Swanpride wrote:

And I don't really see a problem with it. It can be done. You would need to bribe a lot of people, but if there really were a forgotten tube station near Westminster Abbey (and adding one is way in the frame what writers are allowed to do), it is certainly doable. You keep "screaming" that it can't be done, but I really don't see why not. It's not less unbelievable than a terrorist plot which involves capturing a couple of planes and flying them into important buildings. Or an art thief who simply walks into galleries and small museums, stealing paintings by simply taking them off the wall and hide them under his clothes. Or a government official who leaves top secret files in the tube. Or some idiot who uploads the location of secret US bunker to the net. Or a Nazi loot which is found after 75 years. Or a DaVinci which is discovered in an attic. It sounds far-fetched, but all this happened in real life.

And I also don't think that it even was the mayor plot point of the ep. That was simply Sherlock coming back.

 
We seem to be looking at the same things from different perspectives, and yes, maybe I am playing 'devils advocate'. But the analogies you give are way removed from what was portrayed and suggested in the episode. eg. in the days of lower security prior 9.11, it was relitavely easy for a terrorist to take charge of a plane; there had always been the "Take me to Cuba" type incidents. even getting a 'shoe bomb' or 'suitcase bomb' on to a plane (Lockerbie) is a simple 'one shot' operation as are the art thefts..

This terrorist attack plot (the very reason for Sherlock's rescue and revival) would have involved a massivly greater amount of work to achieve.

We are given sound explanations as to how Jim managed to carry out the Crown Jewell, Bank of England etc incidents, all of which are just as 'unlikely' at first glance.

All I am trying to do is get members of this forum to put a similar amount of thought into how this, seemin

Schmiezi wrote:

Sorry, shylock, I don't quite understand why you get so angry about it.

Wasn't there something Terry Pratchett wrote about the use of multiple exclamation marks? Honestly, I think more people would like to discuss this matter with you if you stay calm.

 
Please substitute the word angry with either confused or dissapointed.

If I'm at all angry it would be with the script writers who put forward a plot line expecting viewers to swallow it without question.

Staying calm doesn't come into it, I started the thread to promote discussion. A day and 30 views later there had not been a single comment posted.

IMO the bomb plot, and its practical imposibilities, are just as baffling and deserving of scrutiny as the fall and survival, yet it seems to be being simply either ignored or accepted.

If only life were so simple....... like falling off a bike (or should I say roof)  !!!

The whoe bomb thing was totaly over the top and unecessary imo.

Appart from the fact that there is no way such a device could have been created and installed totaly unnoticed, it portrayed Sherlock in a way I simply cannot believe he would act.

Then to have countdown timers on a remotely detonated bomb and an on/off switch....come on!!!!

I have another theory.......anybody remember Bobby Ewing in the Shower?  Can't wait for series 4

But why were they not included in Sherlocks list of those he cares for and on the hit list? At least equal to if not above his landlady

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

According to The Final Problem it was Moriarty luring Watson away. And Holmes knew immediately that it was a hoax. So I wasl assuming that it´s the same in TRF.

Yeah, damn, that's another thing we're not getting an explanation for. Who was behind the phone call?

As Sherlock did not seem phased by the news I assumed that it was he who arranged it
 

Too right but in this instance every seat had a massive amount of plastic explosive under it and the huge underfloor detonator looked like Moffat had borrowed it from the engine room of the TARDIS.

Forget 'How did Sherlock survive the fall'?

I'd love to hear the explantion as to how an 'in service' underground carridge could be completely installed with explosives and complex underfloor detonation systems.

Might just start a 'suggestions' thread. You never know; Moffat might just be reading this!!!!